Sex Differences in Colon Cancer: Genomic and Non‐Genomic Signaling of Estrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colon cancer (CRC) is a prevalent malignancy that exhibits distinct differences in incidence, prognosis, and treatment responses between males and females. These disparities have long been attributed to hormonal differences, particularly the influence of estrogen signaling. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of recent advances in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying sex differences in colon cancer and the protective role of membrane and nuclear estrogen signaling in CRC development, progression, and therapeutic interventions. We discuss the epidemiological and molecular evidence supporting sex differences in colon cancer, followed by an exploration of the impact of estrogen in CRC through various genomic and non-genomic signaling pathways involving membrane and nuclear estrogen receptors. Furthermore, we examine the interplay between estrogen receptors and other signaling pathways, in particular the Wnt/-catenin proliferative pathway and hypoxia in shaping biological sex differences and estrogen protective actions in colon cancer. Lastly, we highlight the potential therapeutic implications of targeting estrogen signaling in the management of colon cancer and propose future research directions to address the current gaps in our understanding of this complex phenomenon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".